On MS NOW’s The Weekend, as they were discussing the Supreme Court ruling striking down Trump’s tariffs, Axios Senior Economics Reporter Courtenay Brown suggested it’s very unlikely Walmart would lower prices if it receives tariff refunds.
Brown’s comments reflect a common media blind spot: the assumption that large retailers can simply pocket cost savings without regard to competition.
Brown treats Walmart as though it operates outside market discipline. In reality, the retail giant competes on razor-thin margins with Target, Amazon, Costco, and regional chains.
If tariff refunds materially reduce costs across major retailers, competitive dynamics would put downward pressure on prices — not because Walmart is charitable, but because it is competitive. Indeed, recent reporting has noted price declines in certain grocery categories — notably eggs — underscoring that retail pricing responds to cost pressures and competitive dynamics.
Brown suggested a small Main Street shop might share a refund with customers — but doubted Walmart would.
That echoes a familiar media narrative: small businesses are cast in a rosy light, while large corporations, driven by [cue Bernie Sanders voice] gr-e-e-e-d, are presumed to hoard gains. But large retailers got large precisely because they compete aggressively on price.
Axios Reporter Doubts Walmart Would Pass Tariff Refunds to Consumers — Competition: Hello?@TheWeekendMSNOW @Courtenay_Brown pic.twitter.com/r8cTtFnGsF
— Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 21, 2026 ">The question isn’t whether Walmart benevolently sends consumers a rebate. It’s whether competitive pressure forces price adjustments if costs meaningfully decline.
That’s Econ 101 — something you’d expect a senior economics reporter to consider.
Here's the transcript.
MS NOW
The Weekend
2/21/26
7:09 am ETJONATHAN CAPEHART: My big question is, oh great, the Supreme Court said that these tariffs are unconstitutional. I bet most Americans who are watching, they're like, ooh, so where's my, am I going to get a refund? Hold on.
Listen to what the Treasury Secretary had to say about it when he talked at the Dallas, where was he?
EUGENE DANIELS: Economic Club of Dallas.
CAPEHART: Yeah, the Economic Club of Dallas, yesterday. Watch this, it's short.
ECONOMIC CLUB HOST: must be a food fight going after the $175 billion in it, so.
SCOTT BESSENT: I got a feeling the American people won't see it.
CAPEHART: Heh! I got a feeling the American people won't see it. He's right! We are not going to get any kind of rebate check from anybody.
COURTENAY BROWN: Yeah, I wouldn't wait by the mailbox for your check. There's no check coming directly to consumers.
CAPEHART: Not even direct deposit?
BROWN: Not even direct deposit. Don't sit refreshing your bank account either, it's not coming.
It's actually unclear whether businesses who paid for the tariffs will actually get a refund and if they do, when they get it. It could be years. Even President Trump admitted that it could be years down the line if they see anything at all.
And what businesses then do with the money, especially the ones that said, you know, I'm sorry to our consumers, we're going to have to raise prices because our cost of doing business has gone up tremendously.
I'm not sure how they get that money back to the consumers. I think for the sake of ease, that's not something that will happen at all.
Is there a small business on Main Street somewhere that decides, you know, hey, we finally got our refund, we won't raise prices for this reason? Sure.
But I highly doubt that Walmart is going to roll back prices a lot to account for whatever refund that may or may not come.
One of California governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) most high-profile donors is getting the heck out of dodge.
Steven Spielberg, one of the most influential movie-makers in Hollywood history, is reportedly fleeing California for New York, as the state weighs levying a stupid wealth tax that’s sending billionaires fleeing the already high-taxed state, the New York Post reported February 19.
Of course, Spielberg will perhaps never admit that the looming tax had anything to do with it. As his spokesperson Terry Press gaslighted in a statement, Spielberg’s “move to the East Coast is both long-planned and driven purely by his and Kate Capshaw’s desire to be closer to their New York-based children and grandchildren.” Tellingly, the Post noted that “Press did not answer queries about Spielberg’s stance on the proposed tax, which would slap a one-time 5% tax on individual fortunes exceeding $1 billion.” Go figure.
Is this just an extreme coincidence or is Spielberg realizing that his penchant for throwing millions of dollars into the coffers of tax-hiking Democrats is about one of the dumbest routes to receiving a sizable return on investment (ROI), as his wealthy California cohorts seem to be seeing? You decide. If the California wealth tax becomes state law, it “would apply retroactively to the beginning of this year,” the Post analyzed. Gee, who could blame Spielberg for possibly wanting to protect his $11.5 billion net worth from getting knocked down a peg or two in arbitrary wealth taxation?
Spielberg is no stranger to whipping out the big bucks to help Democrats win bigly.
In 2020 alone, Spielberg spent $4,250,000 to help the left win elections country-wide, according to Open Secrets. This isn’t surprising given his on-record disdain for President Donald Trump. At the end of 2017, Spielberg released The Post (2018), which glorified The Washington Post's war on President Nixon with the Pentagon Papers controversy in 1971. Spielberg told liberal outlet The Guardian January 19, 2018, that “The level of urgency to make the movie [The Post] was because of the current climate of this [Trump] administration, bombarding the press and labeling the truth as fake if it suited them.”
After all, it was Spielberg himself who served as Hillary Clinton’s image adviser as the 2016 presidential election was set to kick into high gear by providing her with “likeability lessons.” That investment didn’t pan out so well either.
